4.6 Article

Systemic inflammatory biomarkers as prognostic tools in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-023-05424-4

关键词

Gastric cancer; Oesophageal cancer; Inflammation; Prognosis

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed systemic inflammatory biomarkers in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and found that modified Glasgow Prognostic Score was associated with patients' survival.
Purpose Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is associated with poor prognosis, even in resectable stages. Systemic inflammation plays a key role in cancer progression. Yet, information on prognostic values of systemic inflammatory parameters in European cohorts is scarce.Methods We analysed systemic inflammatory biomarkers (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), leucocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (LLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic inflammation response index (SIRI) and modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS)) at the time of cancer diagnosis and their association with overall survival (OS) in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma treated at the Medical University of Vienna between 1990 and 2020.Results In this analysis of 769 patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, higher mGPS (0-2) scores were associated with shorter OS in the overall cohort (24.9 versus 11.9 versus 7.6 months; HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.549-1.056; p < 0.001), in locally advanced (31.1 versus 19.8 versus 13.9 months, HR 1.561, 95% CI 1.274-1.912; p < 0.001) and in advanced/metastatic settings (12.3 versus 7.3 versus 5.8 months; HR 1.377, 95% CI 1.777-1.611; p < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, the association of mGPS with the OS stayed statistically significant in the locally advanced cohort (HR 1.397, 95% CI 1.068-1.828; p = 0.015), whereas NLR, LLR, PLR and SIRI did not. mGPS was associated with more advanced stages (p < 0.001) and weight loss (p = 0.002).Conclusion mGPS poses a feasible prognostic tool in patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据